123. As is the case law of this court, it is from the analysis of the application initiating proceedings submitted by the Applicants that the Court verifies whether the matter falls within its jurisdiction. 124. Therefore, in order to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction, account must be taken of the legal texts governing its jurisdiction, as well as the nature of the question brought before it by the Applicant, based on the facts as alleged by the Applicant. (See its Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11, of March 17, 2011, delivered in the case, BAKARY SARRE AND 28 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF MALI in CCJ, RL, 2013, p. 349, §51. and ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13 of 6 November 2013 and CHUDE MBA V. REPUBLIC OF GHANA, in CCJ, RL, 2011, p. 67,§25. 125. In the instant case, it is apparent from the alleged facts that the Applicants were in an employment relationship with the Defendant, as they state in their application initiating proceedings that they were employed by the Defendant and that under their contracts, they performed their duties in various ECOWAS institutions for the periods indicated, until the expiry of their contracts and that the Defendant did not pay them all the rights to which they were entitled as a result of the termination of their contracts, in particular the separation allowance, reinstatement allowance or accrued leave. 126. Therefore, the issue before the Court in the present action arises from liabilities arising from an employment relationship, established between each of the Applicants and the Defendant. 127. Thus, it follows from Article 9(f) of Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court as amended by Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05, that the Court has 23